Watchmen Movie

It's 3 AM and I just got back from a midnight showing.

It's a mind-blowing masterpiece.

End transmission.

 

Got back a few hours ago. Very good movie if you've read the comic - not sure how people who haven't will react, yet.

 

We've got our IMAX tickets for tomorrow (Saturday) night in Chi-Town -- we won't be able to see it before that, due to various work-related reasons.

Also, BSG tonight.

(If you'd have told me ten or fifteen years ago that a Watchmen film would get chumped by Battlestar Galactica, I'd've laughed condescendingly in your face.)

 

Really enjoyed it. It was a lot more faithful to the comic as I thought possible. Plus the Comedian and Rorschach bleed win.

 

Jackie Earle Haley should receive a lifetime achievement award for his performance as Rorshach.

 

First things first...

Jackie Earle Haley was Rorschach. His performance was on par with Ledger's Joker. Very well cast, very well done.

Now, on to the film itself. Aside from some things being removed (some major, others maybe not so much) the movie mostly did the book some justice. Though, like the vast majority of movies adapted from books, the source material is superior. I loved the graphic novel and I really enjoyed the movie; I don't think that makes me a bad person. I just understand that this is a movie adapted from the graphic novel, rather than a movie that mirrors the graphic novel completely in every aspect, like so many expected or thought it should be. But, really, that's not only unrealistic but it would be pointless.

Some scenes felt like they were truly ripped from the pages of the novel, most notably (and memorably) are scenes that include Rorschach or the Comedian, two of the best portrayed characters in the movie. The other characters are good too, however I felt Silk Specter II's performance (by Malin Akerman) was a bit stale. Nite Owl II is very well played and fleshed out, and Ozymandias/Adrian was...well...ok. In reality, he could have been cast better. "Doc" Manhattan is just a great character to me and was portrayed well, too. However, just hope you get a theater that's not full of high school kids that will giggle and laugh every time you see the Doc's "downtown" Manhattan; that gets annoying.

Overall, my biggest gripe (aside from the odd, though more "user friendly" new ending) was the soundtrack...some of it felt spot on, such as in the opening credits, but other parts the music was just very, very inappropriate (see: sex scene).

While the movie is about 163 minutes in length, I think it captures the essence of what Watchmen is/was, and if anything, will prompt a whole new generation to pick up the novel and read it. Which, in all reality, they should; the character's are much deeper in the novel and the themes are much stronger and stressed much more throughout. I thought a few themes that I felt were very pivotal to the story (the watch making, the broken watch, Rorschach's thought process, etctera) were kind of left out or very very lightly touched on. To really appreciate things like this and the story overall, one will have to read the novel. Oh well. Still great.

Overall, I felt this movie was very well done and pays a very nice homage to the source material and I am looking forward to the director's cut, whether it comes out in theaters or on Bluray.

 

On Ozy: I think the casting was fantastic, and he just wasn't given much screen time.

On sex scene music: the choice seems to have been to humorously point out that this was what had been missing in their lives all along.

 

Agreed. Most of the song choices made me wonder if Zack Snyder has a Time-Life "Classic Pop Songs That Have Already Been Used in a Dozen Other Movies, and Much More Appropriately" collection. "The Sound of Silence"? Seriously?! And the score wasn't any better, which coming from apparent plagiarist Tyler Bates is no surprise.

 

Just got back from it and I am actually agreeing with Alan Moore that it was unfilmable in the sense that it just looses so much of it's meaning in cinematic form. Snyder has in essence created a very faithful adaptation but so much of the context and deeper meaning is gone. The film is visually beauitful and Earles is excatly what I pictured in Rorschach but the film is Watchmen but at the same time it isn't. I have to give it a lukecold review

 

I wouldn't say the result was any more shallow in relation to its source material than any other novel adaptation. In fact, I'm surprised at how deep it was.

 

I saw it at a midnight showing on Friday. I enjoyed it and thought it was faithful to the graphic novel. My only gripe was with Dr. Manhattan's "downtown area" being shown so many times. I don't think it was that necessary.

 

But again it wasn't unnecesarry. It's like...to cut away is to say there's something for him to be bashful about, which kind of downplays the point of him being naked, anyway.

 

I never really understood the gripe about that.

Sure, in the comic it seems that some frames deliberately shy away from showing it, or obstruct the view (as does the film) but others just show his genitals without shame. I don't think it takes away from the film to show, I actually think it adds because, simply, it was part of the novel. If people have an issue and automatically fixate on his lower-region whenever it is shown, that's their deal and is maybe something they should work on (not saying anyone in this thread, but other reviews and sites have actually pointed it out, very plainly, as if it hindered the film). However, I didn't ever really notice or fixate on the subject matter, accept initially when it was first shown; from then on I just saw it as part of his "costume" really and looked past it.

 

My feeling as well. My friends couldn't stop looking at it(And I warned them it was going to be in there and I didn't want to hear them complain about it ) , I was more interested in what he was saying or what the other characters were doing. As far as I was concerned, it was just Dr.Manhattan walking around. I honestly can't say I even remember details about it. I'm pleased the crew didn't censor it but they also didn't really flaunt it. To me, it didn't detract from the character and I think it's an important plot point as we see he gradually wears less as he loses touch with humanity. My only complaint would be the lack of showing the original costume which would have further shown this gradual change. Because in the novel wasn't it a full suit, then the tank top, then the black underwear until eventually it was nothing?

 

It's interesting to note that people seem to forget what we're all made of, as though the "correct" human figure is asexual with no discomfiting parts to distract our eye. I find it extremely brave of the filmmakers to have made the decision to keep Manhattan nude most of the time, when they might have just put his little black shorts on all the time and left it at that. But there's something pure and human about John's nudity that perhaps is there to remind us that we're all the same underneath, or at least that we all share the same "giggle-inducing" parts, and to challenge us to laugh... because if we're laughing at John's nudity, we're laughing at our own as well.

 

I noticed that last bit, Quest. A nice nod, I thought. The movie is chock-full of Easter eggs. I plan to catch a second screening and look at the background images a bit more. One thing I did notice was the "comic" version of Nite Owl's outfit down in his workshop; he wore a more modern version in the movie, but his more "owl" looking version can be seen in the case beside it, I believe. I thought that was a nice nod.

On the mention of Bubastis, I think her origin should have been touched on a bit in the film, and honestly...I missed Ozzy's rant about his family, Alexander the Great, etc. I'm hoping it will be included in the Director's Cut. I know we can't have everything that was left out added into the Director's Cut of the film, but it would be nice to see that bit...since it seemed to add a lot of weight to what was happening at the end of the comic. Another part that I missed was the "fat man" stepping on the watch at the carnival; I felt that was a nice piece of history that kind of explained the whole "pre-destiny" rant that Doc Manhattan had gone on (in the comic, at least). That's a bit knit picky of me, though.

 

Really? Did I miss that? I noticed his suit and then the snow suit next to it, but I hadn't realized that his comic suit was there....that's awesome.

 

Really? Huh, maybe I just took too quick of a glance at it, then. I'll make sure to pay more attention my second time around, but I could have sworn that I saw his "comic" costume in there, too. Seems like something Snyder would do.
On the note of the mechanical suit, I also noticed that it was strangely absent; I would have liked to see it.

Did anyone notice if the "Hiroshima Lovers" were spray painted on any walls? I remember that being in the comic a lot and I find it hard to believe they would omit that.

 

Wow, those are awesome. The Batman one is really great; not only did he put the poster in there but Snyder was able to give a nice reason as to why there's no Batman "in universe". I really loved the opening sequence; possibly the best that I've ever seen in a film.

Also, have to point out, I loved the bit with The Comedian during credits at the motorcade. I thought it was a great nod to that moment in the comic when Laurie is remembering the party with The Comedian, and he makes the remark "Don't ask me where I was during the assassination," or something to that effect. Really outstanding.

 

Saturday Morning Watchmen

 

That video has been floating around; very amusing!

So, I saw the movie again and I have to say that I was indeed mistaken about Night Owl's "original" costume. I suppose the larger and more "winged" looking cape just made it look like the original. Still, there's a lot of gear in that closet he seems to have, so maybe?

Also, I think I spotted the "Hiroshima lovers", though I'm not 100% certain. I believe they can be seen at the end of the movie, just before we're brought into the newspaper office, when we're given a wide view of the city block; over on the left there's a man painting, and it seems to be he's painting over the spray painted couple. I could be mistaken, though.